Wikipedia:Peer review/Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity/archive1

Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity edit

I've done a lot of work on this obscure (but interesting) subject. I'd like an outside view, as I feel I'm too close to the subject, done too much research and written too much to really assess what I've got so far. I'd like you guys to look at this with an especial eye towards FA; it would be pretty awesome if I could get such an obscure subject to FA status. --maru (talk) contribs 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I've been hoping someone would tackle this for a long time now. Though, I've never heard it being referred to as an "Encyclopedia" before. This is an amazing topic, and I wish I had more to add, but you have added all I know! --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) I'm curious, though. What did you hear it referred to as? The Epistles, or as the Rasa'il ikhwan al-safa? --maru (talk) contribs 22:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"was transmitted as far abroad as Spain" this sentence reads like it should contain more information. Such as "was transmitted as far abroad as Spain in the West and xxxx in the East." or "was transmitted as far abroad as Spain from xxxx". --Mcginnly 15:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this put paid to your concerns? --maru (talk) contribs 22:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inline references! The folks over at FAC and PR lurv those. Change your external link list into footnotes, and I have a feeling more and more people will like it. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 04:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do they wuv them? But seriously, I'm not all that concerned about the footnotes not being inline, since there seem to be some nice bots who will do that for me. As for external links... this may surprise you, but I've drawn very little information from them. The dead-wood resources have provided me pretty with all the content I needed so far- but I'll see what I can do. --maru (talk) contribs 04:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headings generally shouldn't use the world "The" in the beginning (like "The encyclopedia" -> "Encyclopedia") and also shouldn't generally repeat the title of an article ("Encyclopedia" -> "Overview" or something along those lines). The inline external links have to be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs- I suggest converting the current footnotes to the cite.php format, which is pretty convenient to use. (note that you can use the <ref name=theName> property) As of now, the article is pretty heavy on lists, which is a big source of objections on WP:FAC. I would suggest either prose-ifiying the lists (converting them to paragraph form), which would be pretty difficult to do, or adding them to a separate subpage like "Contents of blah blah" and linking to it in the See also section. AndyZ _t 15:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I've fixed the header. I've left the references alone because I don't feel like learning a new system or wasting time changing between two system which work equally well for me, especially when other will do it for me (as I mention above to Messed Rocker); and I think I will split out the list of rasa'il into a new page, called List of rasa'il in the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity- subpages are apparently rather deprecated these days. --maru (talk) contribs 23:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]